we said yesterday, we did not have majority but we have the gavel. excuse me -- but we do not have the gavel. [laughter] we have something more important -- we have unity. we do not have the gavel. we do not have the majority. but we have unity. i think our caucus this morning demonstrates that very clearly. so i come here with my sisters -- when i came to congress 25 years ago there were 23 members of congress who were women out of 445.

just think of that. 12 democrats, 11 republicans, something like that. today we have over 60 house democratic women. [applause] not enough. we want more. but all of us who were there, that dozen of us for the time, we took responsibility to try to put more women in congress across the country. i am proud that in california our delegation of democrats is a majority of women, not even counting our two senators. women are empowered in california. i also want to acknowledge that although our members are great here, two of our colleagues have gone on to the senate. senator elect tammy baldwin [applause]

senator elect mazie hirono. only the second woman of color to serve in the senate. that is very exciting. unfortunately we do not have kathy hochul this next congress, but the future is soon coming upon -- we know they will be making a great public contribution. so here we are. we are still finishing up some of our campaigns. we are very proud of the success -- as you see here today. why is it important for us to make this statement of the strength of women in the congress of the united states? the house democratic women? because this is where the hopes and dreams of american families are.

they may not know that, they may not know one party from the next and the rest, but we now that without roza deluaro we would not have the lilly ledbetter paycheck fairness act. without gwen moore would not have the violence against women act put forth the way it is. [applause] working so hard with other members of our caucus, to protect women in the military. [applause] we are so very proud of the chair of the democratic national committee, debbie wasserman-schultz. [applause] i could go around here and talk about the leadership. susan davis, women in the military has been per issue for a long time.

at any event, the point is that if america is going to reach its fulfillment as a nation we must have the further empowerment of women. women in the military, if you want to be our strongest we must be given every opportunity to women to hold every job so that they can one day attain the top jobs. we want women in business, in the fortune 500, fewer than 20 ceos. if we want our economy to flourish and grow we must live up women's leadership. very important. women in the academic world, in health care, any subject you can name. is more successful, more efficient with the involvement of women. when women came to the polls

last week, they registered their support for those who understood the challenges that women face. it is really a remarkable thing. under the leadership of the women standing here, the voices of america as mothers, daughters, and grandmothers will be heard. women are the bread winners for our families. in many cases, the small business owners in our communities. and the workers that will spur our prosperity. they're holding jobs of the office, creating jobs as entrepreneurs and owners. we keep our focus on women's rights and health, equal pay, choice, we also know that women are focused on the same issues all of us are -- the economy, jobs, the future of the middle- class and the national security of our country.

they are concerned about fiscal soundness for america because they think about the future. as we move forward to debate our economic and fiscal challenges in the weeks and months ahead, one thing is clear. our economic agenda, choices and decisions will be viewed through the perspective and eyes of our nation's women and their needs. and those of their families. so i have decided, in light of all the excitement accompanying our beautiful and diverse caucus -- in san francisco, i always say the beauty is in the mix. that is where the strength is, in the mix. the size of our women's caucus -- i am not satisfied, we want more, but we are the largest element of political leadership for women in the country. larger than it has ever been. so i have made the decision

that some of you may have some interest in -- in order to continue work on empowering women, to making sure our affordable care act is in force in a way that no longer makes being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition -- [applause] to work with the president to create jobs and grow our economy in a way that empowers women in the workplace, to talk about a healthy political climate, to work with women to say, we know one way to increase the involvement of women in government and politics, we must reduce the role of money and increase the level of civility. that would be a very good thing for our country and would elect more women and more young people. [applause] a healthy nation, a healthy

political arena, a healthy planet. i am so pleased to hear what the president said about clean energy jobs. that has been a priority for me, and i look forward to working on those issues as we go forward. so it is about, again, a healthy, fare economy, healthy people, healthy planet, help the politics. you cannot separate the policy from the politics. if you want good -- you cannot celebrate the breadbox from the ballot box. if you want the right policy for america's working families, you must have politics that are fair and enable people who share those values to be effective. so in order to reignite the american dream, that is what we are about, to build ladders of opportunity for those who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility, for small business and

entrepreneurship and a strong and thriving middle-class -- we have work to do. i have made a decision to submit my name to my colleagues to once again serve as the house democratic leader. [applause] i am so proud to stand here with you, my sisters. a lot of our friends really wanted to come out here -- this is a girls' morning. any questions? >> was there ever a moment that you considered not staying on as we talk about this? >> there was not really much time. when the election was over, it was not over. we still had about five races

that we were watching very carefully. my first time was spent working with steve israel to make sure we had the resources to prevail in those races. my second time i spent was to call people who were not successful in this particular election. everybody here was getting a lot of calls -- a running is very noisy. not succeeding, the phones do not ring that much. so i wanted to hear from them, what their views were about how we go forward. then to take the calls of my colleagues to see what their view is. what i talked about here, about changing the role of money in politics, is really very important motivator for me to stay in the leader's office. i think it must be done.

when people say money did not make any difference in the campaign, they all wasted their money -- that really was not true. the president of the united states, the most well known, respected person on the planet, had to spend about $1 billion to set the record straight from what that big money was putting out there. senate races, house races, tammy duckworth had $7 million spent against her of outside money. this is a congressional race. this is not right. our founders had in mind a government of the many, not the government of the money. you have heard me say that over and over again. that was a motivating factor to me. of course, the will of my

caucus and they convey to me they're well that i should stay. i am gladly doing that. >> what did your colleagues privately say about your decision to stay on -- what about the party having a younger leadership in the long term? [talking over each other] >> you should ask that question to mitch mcconnell. >> mr. hoyer, you all, does this prohibit younger leadership from moving forward?

>> be what everyone to step aside? >> does this delay younger leadership from moving forward? thatt's for a moment honor as a legitimate question. [laughter] although it is quite offensive, but you do not realize it, i guess. the fact is that everything i have done in my almost decade now of leadership is to elect younger and newer people to the congress. i came to the congress when my youngest child was a senior in high school. i knew my male colleagues came when they were 30. they had a jump on me because they did not have -- i did what i wanted to do. i was blessed to have that opportunity to sequentially

raise my family and then come to congress. but i wanted women to be here in greater numbers at an earlier age so that their seniority what starts to account much sooner. -- would start to account much sooner. we wanted to keep bringing in younger people. the decisions we made over the years to invest what we wanted in the house in 2006 and then in races before was to encourage people to come. when they come, to give that opportunity to serve. i do not have any concern about that. i was home raising a family, getting the best experience of all in diplomacy. [applause] the answer is no.

>> i am wondering, when did you reach a final decision to stay on? >> my conversations with the president are not ones that i share. but my issues, my colleagues made it very clear. in fact, they must have coordinated with each other because their message was clear -- do not even think about leaving. that is what i got over and over again. is this a coincidence or what? but my decision, really, i love what i do -- of course. am i honored by the support of my colleagues? endlessly. but i had to talk this over with my family because it is an enormous time commitment.

the encouragement i got from them. my brother was not as keen on it as my children were. i guess he wanted to spend more time with me, but my kids were busy. [laughter] in any event, i would say final yesterday. yesterday. probably finally yesterday. i called my brother tommy this morning to tell him my final decision. being actively involved in politics at this level is really in satiable. what i said to him, there are not enough hours in the day for me. there is so much more i want to

do. i do not know how to get any more hours in the day. i can only sleep so little. anything i say, really, is something that any one of these women could be saying about their own personal decisions about their lives to continue in the role that they have. each one of those roles is very important. they have vested in me this title of leader and in two weeks perhaps they will again. perhaps we on the two husbands --all have to husband -- -- perhaps a better word, we all have to mete out our time, the most finite commodity of all. but from the standpoint of the victories we had at the polls i would not think of walking away. we had a fabulous victory. [applause]

as we talked about yesterday, we did win 25 seats. we did not net 25 seats, but there are 16 republicans who won not be back in january. they will be replaced by the beautiful diversity of america, that looks like america. the vitality -- 49 new members, 25% of our caucus is brand new. i want to see them succeed here and i want to see them return. it is always more about the issues, it is about a healthy political system, a healthy america, a healthy planet, a healthy economy that is fair. spoken like a mom -- it is always about health. i feel good about the decision. decisions are liberating carried when you make a decision, how liberating it is once you accept that. >> how difficult is it for you

to lead with us again? >> that is no problem at all. i am glad you asked that question. i think we all share an enthusiasm -- correct me if i am wrong. there is something very positive about this election. this president who was held under such terrible comments by the other side was reelected. that was important for the issues we care about, health care, medicare, you name it, but it was also important because it did not have a rejection of president barack obama. this is what was in our hearts -- this is a very important decision america made and the world was watching. at the same time, the record

shows we got more votes than the republicans in terms of reaching out for our members to reelect them and increase our numbers. that was very positive. so it is almost liberating to be here with a democratic president whose commitment to the future is based on values, shared values of the american people. a commitment to strive for bipartisanship. we all come here to do the same thing. i do not want to say it is better than having the gavel, but it is better than it would have been the last term. it is better than the last term. infinitely better than the last term. [applause] because some of the people, the anti-government ideologues, some of them are gone.

that message has largely been rejected by the american people. it is not about the gavel, although we would like to have it. it is about the unity we share, the important work we can do, and thinking a little longer term, of the past our country is on and where we would go. >> how much of your decision was tied to the idea that you will be able to be around and be at the table now for some of the things you work so hard for from 2008 until 2010? how much did that play into your decision? >> it was the encouragement of my colleagues. they said to me, do not even think of leaving. they said, you have done all the heavy lifting -- now sit down at the table. that really was important to a large number of our colleagues. for some people in the general

public who saw four men at the table was not an appealing thing, however excellent they might be. the idea i would walk away from this table, that was something we heard a lot about. inside the congress, my colleagues knew what i could bring to that table. >> a moment ago you claimed victory, but in fact stated goal was to get the gavel back. having that, what you deserve to return to the position? >> our stated goal was driving for 25. on that path, we did elect 25 new members of congress. we did not net 25, but we made enormous progress. we made more progress than anybody thought we would do. republicans the morning of the election thought they would win

seats. we won 16 of their seats. george w. bush was elected, republicans picked up three seats. when clinton was reelected, the democrats picked up two seats. when eisenhower was reelected, republicans picked up two seats. we picked up as many seats as all three of those presidents did in their reelection. we believe it was a stunning even for democrats. [applause] a stunning victory for democrats. i salute our chairman, steve israel, for being a spectacular field marshal in all this. i commend all of my colleagues, mike leaders, steny hoyer, -- chris van hollen, the list goes on.

all the women who traveled. we were thinking it was possible, and it was. i would say the one disappointment that i had was that medicare message that was at stake was so misrepresented by republicans that the people were confused. people said, why did the democrats want to cut medicare? we did not. we used the savings of medicare to extended for another decade and provide benefits immediately for seniors right now. republicans took that same money and gave tax cuts to the rich. that was a message that outside money spent a fortune to misrepresent. that is why the election of barack obama was so very

important. to protect medicare -- even though we could not get the majority, we knew when he won that many of the issues, affordable care, medicare, were protected. we had a different view of what happened that day. we saw some of the members that we elective, the intellect we brought in here. it is not about quantity for us so much as the policy of leadership, the quality of our members, the ideas that they had, the talent that they bring, the commitment and dedication to a better future. we may not have the majority, we may not have the gavel, but we have the unity. we have the unity to go fourth, create jobs, build our economy, simple as abc. make it in america, build the infrastructure of america, and tax cuts for the middle-class.

tax cuts for the middle-class. we can do that, prevent us from going over the cliff. we look forward to working with our great president and congratulate the senate on adding to their numbers, especially at and so many women to the senate. do we have time for one more question? >> after the election, republicans are still demanding structural changes to medicare as part of the discussion -- how far are democrats willing to go on those programs? >> as i said to you, this will be familiar -- when we go to the table and everything is on the table we will make judgments about how we grow the economy, which is the best way to reduce the debt. how do we create jobs? what cuts are necessary to achieve that without hurting investments in education, which brings more money to the

treasury than any initiative you can name. what are the revenues that will come to balance all of that? our commitment to democrats is we believe social security and medicare are pillars of economic and health security for america's seniors. they should not be used -- have cuts made to them to give tax cuts to the rich. the adjustments we would make in then would be to make them stronger. as it is in the affordable care act with medicare, to prolong its life, increase its benefits, and keep america's seniors healthy. i think it is time for us to go back to work -- there are so many of us here, aren't we proud of the fact we have 61 women now -- now we just have to double. we just have to double our numbers. but there is nothing more hopeful than the politics -- to the politics of our country

than the increased participation of women, the empowerment of women in the political process. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversation]

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome back. the american people have spoken. a week ago they decided in many ways to continue the status quo with divided government. we have a lot of big challenges confronting asset the end of the cycle. i would remind everyone that divided government has sometimes done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ron reagan and tip o'neill during the current tax reform. bill clinton and the republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people, and we have, as everyone knows, a lot of challenges at the end of the year. i will be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk

about the way forward. we look forward to being a part of the solution to the significant problems. it is my pleasure to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> is an honor to serve as the assistant leader on the republican side. we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solve the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame duck and we know what those are going forward. there is no mystery about that, nor is there any mystery to some of the solutions based on the president's own bipartisan fiscal commission and others that have laid out road maps and shown us a way to address those issues. i am looking forward to working more closely with my colleagues now in a new capacity. i appreciate their confidence placed in me.

i view as my role model for that the service of senator john kyl, who will remain our whip through the end of the year, who has been an outstanding member of the united states senate and somebody who has left a very big shoes to fill. >> i also want to thank my colleagues and look forward to working with our leadership. to do good things for the country. the elections are over with. this is an opportunity for us to turn the page. that means the president of united states has got to lead. he has got to step forward and help us deal with the most immediate crisis, the fiscal cliff. as we look down the road to things that we can do that will really make this -- put this country back on top track and keep the economy growing again, those are all things that are in

our grasp and are in sight if we want to do the right things to make it happen. we all know the issue being debated right now is the issue of taxes. there is so much analysis out there, so many groups who have studied this issue very carefully and have said that if we raise taxes in a down economy it will cost as economic growth, 700,000 jobs, will reduce take-home pay for many americans. that is a wrong direction in which to go. but we believe that the president, if he is willing to have an opportunity here to work with republicans, we stand ready in the senate and house republicans to as well to work with him on a solution that will deal with the immediate crisis of the fiscal cliff. just as importantly, the long- term fiscal solvency of this country and getting our economy growing and getting americans back to work. >> i also want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to continue as chairman of the republican policy committee, to continue to work with my colleagues on the issues that all of americans are concerned about.

those of the issues of jobs, the economy, the debt, and spending. i will continue to provide them with credible, reliable, accurate, and timely information to make sure each of them can be most effective as we deal with these major issues that are facing our country. >> the new member of this group -- it is a real pleasure to be here. i look forward to developing a working relationship with those who have cameras and microphones. i expressed gratitude to my colleagues to let me serve in this capacity. we will work hard to make sure good things happen in a political sense for republican senators, but i fully recognize that the success of politics follows governing well. i look forward to working with leader mcconnell and others in

our congress to make sure we make correct decisions on behalf of america. so we do our jobs well as united states senators, good things will happen in the political realm as well. we are working hard to develop the right team at the senate campaign committee, and i am pleased to tell you that senator rob portman has agreed to the vice chair for finance to help us in acquiring the necessary resources for success. senator elect ted cruz has agreed to serve as vice chairman of the nrsc. we have already in place the beginnings of a team that will work hard to make a difference, not just on behalf of republicans but on behalf of all americans. thank you very much. >> a couple of questions. >> $1.6 trillion in revenue -- is that anything you think republicans could ultimately agree to? >> i can only echo what the speaker said very correctly last week. republicans believe that there is a way to get additional revenue.

we also believe that additional revenue should be tied to -- the only thing that will save the country in the long run, that is reforming entitlements. we know you cannot raise taxes enough to solve the problem. the big argument during the campaign over whether we should raise tax rates on people of $250,000 would have produced enough revenue to fund the government for six days. we now it may be a good political talking point, but it does not deal with the problem. we are open to discussing all this with the president. everybody who studied the issue knows that until you make our entitlement programs fit for the future demographic about country, the demographics of our country, you cannot possibly solve our long-term debt and deficit problems. we are open to discussing all this with the president. we had endless discussions about it last year. the american people have chosen

a divided government once again. as i said, divided government has frequently done good things for the country and we are willing to sit down and talk about it. the first meeting i will be involved on is friday. >> has been a disappointing election cycle for senate republicans -- what changes you make to make sure you pick up seats in 2014? >> the american people have spoken. they have voted basically for the status quo. we still have a republican house, democratic senate, democratic president. i think they want us to tackle some of these problems and get them behind us. today is not a day to continue to campaign. we ought to turn the campaign off and turn the corner and start working on these serious problems that confront us. we are ready to sit down with the president and the democratic

majority in the senate and get to work. thanks a lot. >> we have finished our leadership elections and we are all grateful that the caucus supported us in the positions we held in the 112th congress. i talk about his leadership team that i still admire and has been so good to the caucus and our country. we look forward to meeting the challenges ahead. we know what those challenges are. the first opportunity we have had to bring the caucus together -- all the democratic senators. incoming senators are all accomplished in their own right. representing states from all over this country. i am very happy to say we were

able to add to the number of women. about one-third of the democratic caucus is now women. one of the things that we did at the special election we just had -- we presented senator murray with 40 red roses representing her 20 years in the senate plus the 20 women who are now in the united states senate. our incoming freshmen are anxious to do a lot of good things. that is what they will do. we ran a message led by senator murray, from montana to massachusetts, the american people told us loud and clear they agreed on a balanced approach. this approach we are going to take to the remainder of this congress and into the new one, which will begin very soon. questions? >> your fourth term as majority

leader -- you have any thoughts on? [inaudible] >> i am just going to continue doing my job. [inaudible] >> everyone should understand that we are going to move to change what has been done to make the senate an institution that has no bearing on when johnson was president or even bill frist was majority leader. they have made it almost an impossible task to get things done. the motion to proceed, which they have abused, which they

have abused -- do you realize we have the farm bill, a postal bill, and many other things we need to do, like the tax bill we passed over here? we cannot go to conference. why? it takes three filibusters. we have to do three filibusters to go to conference. that is something we should change. we are going to make an attempt

to change the rules. we are working, we are working to make sure we have the votes to do that. >> senator brown of massachusetts lamented that -- [inaudible] >> i am glad to have the chance to respond to that. i saw during the campaign his plea for bipartisanship -- that is a big joke. it is a travesty. he was one of the most partisan people to ever serve here. he could have saved citizens united. he could have been the 60th vote on that and many things. i do not need a lecture from him on bipartisanship. he should go look in the mirror. [inaudible] >> you should never chew gum -- get rid of that. [laughter] i wanted to tell you earlier but did not have the chance. john kerry is my friend. i worked so hard for him when he was running for president. i did everything i could to help them. he came very close. there has been no better legislator that i served with. he has been way out front on issues dealing with climate

change, infrastructure, bank development, many other things. i do not know any conversation with the president or anyone in the white house has had with him. any conversation i have had with john kerry, he does not bring up the secretary of anything. i'll do everything i can to help him if he is chosen. we feel very comfortable if in fact something does happen, we feel comfortable that massachusetts will -- i have already told you how i feel about scott brown. >> what do you think his priorities should be? >> the president's priorities are to protect the middle-class and small business. we are one vote away from that being accomplished. all we have to do is have the

house of representatives bring up our bill. we have brought up their bill -- it was roundly defeated. they should do this to help the american people. all the other issues the president has laid out a program on -- job creation, we need to do that. the president does not need any information from me. he knows what he is going to do. he is pointed in the right direction. >> last question -- [inaudible] >> you mostly could not hear the question, but she said what do i expect from the meeting at the white house on friday? what about entitlement cuts?

i have made very clear -- i told anyone who will listen, including everyone in the white house and the president, that i am not going to be part of having social security as part of the talks related to the deficit. so security, i am happy we have an independent commission -- the conrad commission dealing with the debt to deal with social security. social security is not part of the problem. that is one of the myths the republican have tried to create.

it is sound for the next many years, but we want to make sure that in our years people are protected, and also that it will not be part of the budget talks as far as i am concerned. as you know, we have strengthened medicare with our health care bill. we have prolonged the life of it for 12 years. we have saved hundreds of billions of dollars. all that savings went to recipients. we are not going to be negotiating things here, but i give you my personal feelings about where we need to go. take care of the middle-class. have the richest of the rich contribute a little bit to helping our economy. the majority of the people who are fortunate and made a lot of money -- they are willing to do this. this is a little less than a half-hour. >> i have a resolution and ask for the consideration.

>> the resolution will be received and appropriately referred. >> thank you. the resolution calls for an establishment of a select committee of the senate to make a thorough and complete investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding and the response of the united states government to the september 11, 2012 terrorist attacks against the united states consulate in libya and to prevent future attacks in the future. i send that to the desk in behalf of myself and senator gramm of south carolina. before i go into the need for this select committee -- and there clearly is a need because there is a huge credibility gap of monks the american people because of the now going on a

two weeks of contradictory reports, contradictory statements beginning with the president of the united states. the president of the united states on the day of september 12 went to the rose garden and stated he opposed terrorist attacks. that evening as we found out after the election with an interview with 60 minutes, the president stated, and i will provide the " for the record, we do not know who is responsible for these attacks. he went from condemning terrorist attacks to saying that he did not know who was responsible. in the days following in various venues whether they be late- night talk shows or the united

nations, the president alleged this was a hideous video that triggered a spontaneous demonstration. not true. the president of the united states did not tell the american people the truth about the attacks that tickets for americans' lives that went on for seven hours for which we were totally unprepared. four brave americans died. it has now been eight weeks. the american people have received nothing but contradictory statements from all levels of our government. five days after it had clearly been identified as al qaeda terrorist attack, the united nations ambassador at the direction of the white house went on sunday talk shows to

allege this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a video as did our secretary of state and as did the president of the united states. the american people deserve the facts. the american people need to know why was the security at the consulate so inadequate despite two previous attacks on the facility. and the assassination attempt on the ambassador. what can the president know, when did he know it, at what did he do about it? why did he not take the lead? what actions if any were taken to respond on august 16? weeks before the september 11 attacks stating there were

numerous armed groups that pose a threat to american interests. the consulate could not survive a sustained attack like the one that occurred one month later at the hands of one of these militia groups, which was al qaeda affiliated. what actions did the secretary of state take to these repeated warnings? i saw christopher stevenson on july 7. he told me of his security concerns them. the senator from south carolina and others wrote an article talking about the need for security. the problems that to the libyan government was having. why were repeated requests for greater security turned down by officials of the state department? on the anniversary of the worst terror attack in american

history and other western interests, why or armed forces addition to a the -- not ready? not ready and in a position ready to respond to what was an emergency. the fight went on for several hours. why did senior administration officials seek the blame of a demonstration when there was no spontaneous demonstration, which they were seeing in real time? which the surveillance cameras within and without our consulate clearly indicated? why would anyone believe -- heavy weapons? nobody believes that. why did president obama insist he labored the attacks an act of

terrorism on september 12 when we know now a in an interview with 60 minutes on the same day, he refused to characterize the attack in this war and he spent tiv was spreading in the spontaneous protest for a hateful video. we need a select committee. the families of those americans need to know. y. in of the world did the administration order of our friends reach a roller anyone would reject a select committee. the people of the united states deserve it and the family of

those deserve it. they deserve answers. in eight weeks the have not gotten answers. the only credible way of getting answers is with a select committee. i understand today the president took some umbrage at statements that we have made concerning this issue. we believe whoever it is must be held responsible the commander in chief who so far in my view has not exercised the responsibilities. also, has not informed the american people of the facts. this president and is a administration and guilty of engaged in a cover up, neither of which are execrable to the

american people. if it appears i feel strongly above this issue, i speak with the families of those who are murdered. i speak as a friend of christopher stephens. i speak something with some authority that this attack could have been prevented if the facts on the ground or taken into consideration, including the warning's there were sent stating of the consulate could not resist a concentrated attack by al qaeda affiliated groups. that alone convinces me -- and i believe most americans when they find out -- the actions to prevent these murders were

insufficient if not totally incompetent. >> i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy. >> without objection. briefly, then i'll -- mr. graham: very briefly. here's the request of the body. benghazi needs to be investigated. we need to find out what happened so it never happens again. you have four americans killed, the first ambassador killed in the line of duty in 33 years. that's worthy of our time. dianne feinstein is doing a very good job with saxby chambliss on the intel side. general petraeus must testify. i think secretary clinton must testify. here's the problem that i have with the approach we're taking. armed services needs to ask

d.o.d. how could you not come to the aid of the consolate for almost eight hours on september september, of a days? the state department needs to be asked, why did you deny additional security requests that had been made for months? and could you not see this coming? and the c.i.a. needs to be asked a lot o questions also. a select committee, where you have members of intel, foreign relations and armed services, listening to all three agencies explain themselves i think is essential to get to the truth. i will not know what general petraeus says in t intel committee, and i won't get to ask him questions. there will be people in the intel committee that will not be able to ask secretary panetta, general ha*pl and others about the -- general hamm and others about the d.o.d. piece. the best thing for the senate to do, i think, is to have a bipartisan select committee where you combine the resources of all three of the committees

who have jurisdiction over different pieces and create a professional approach to solving the problem. it will be run by our democratic colleagues because they're in charge of the body. it should be. there have been times in the past, iran-contra and other examples of where committee combine their resources to make sure that they full lip understand what was being said. if you stovepipe this and one committee goes one way and the other committee goes another way we're not going to get the complete picture of what happened in benghazi. that's what we're asking, is that the majority leader and minority leader create a select committee of the three kw-ts that have primary -- committees that have primary jurisdiction over each moving part so we can get to the bottom of this. here's why it's important. there are a lot of conspiracy theories going on onhe internet. i'd like to be able to say that's not so because here's what we found. there's a lot of accusations

being made against people i know and like. i'd like to say this accusation is unfounded. unfortunately if there is accountability to be had by somebody i like, i would say here's why we had to do it. it would hp us all to go to the public and say we did this together. we did it in a professional, logil way, and here's the results of our work product so we can get benghazi behind us and move forward. until we do that, you're going to, i think, fail the american people. epbgt process -- i think the process we're engaging in today is going to lead to uncoordinated fact finding. pieces of the puzzle will never be put together because we're not talking or working together. think you're going to let the families down. the process we're engaging in today will not get to the truth. mr. mccain: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. graham: yes. mr. mccain: one of the most salient points of this whole scenario was five days after the

attack when the ambassador to the united nations went on all sunday shows to allege that this was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. those talking points that the ambassador used didn't come from the c.i.a., is my opinion understanding. but it came from the white house. who in the white house, who? was it the president of the unit states? was it one of his people? who was it that gave her talking points that iicated something for which there was no basis in fact, certainly not after five days. and did the president ask about this situation? did the president of the united states say wait a minute, is she going out there when -- right after on the program that i was on, "face the nation," th president of the libya national assembly came on right after and said this is an al qaeda attack, this is a terrorist attack.

and then for days afterwards, the president of the united states goes out and including the ited nations saying that this was a hateful video that triggered a flash mob. that none of this has a shred of credibility. and so we talk about the need for a select committee, when the house is responsible for these talking points, if they were, then that congress all the different oversig committees that we have in the united states senate. mr. graham: my response would be as follows. there is a news article coming somewhere from the state department saying the c.i.a. would be responsible for consulate security because this mostly was a c.i.a. operation. there is an article coming out of the c.i.a. corners, basically saying we responded very quickly and efficiently to the attack. here's my problem. if you don't have a select committee listening to all the

stories, it's pretty hard to put the puzzle together. my response would be why did the people in the state department assigned to benghazi ask for support from the state department if this was, in fact, a c.i.a. responsibility? i want to hear the state department explain that. in a news article, you're trying to create the impression that we're a secondary player. well, that would be news to every state department official in libya because they were asking the state department for security. i'd like to cllenge the c.i.a.'s narrative of what they did and how they did it, but i want to hear the complete story. the senator from new hampshire has been an attorney general prosecuting a cas and i would just like to get her input as to how efficient you think it would be for three committees to do their own investigations, never talk to each other in a coordinated fashion, have a stovepipe investigation versus a

coordinated one body listening to everybody approach. a senator: i would answer the senator from north carolina that if we do not do a select committee and bring everyone together, what you envision is an incomplete story on each. ms. ayotte: first of all, we know that c.i.a. sources out out a timeline for the c.i.a. you have the stateepartment talking about prior security requests and their view on it and emails that they sent on. and then you have the department of defense talking about putting out another timeline. where you are left is no investigation would be conducted in that way from your most basic incident to this, which is of course where four brave americans were murdered during what appears to be a terrorist attack. and so how are we then going to follow up to make sure that we get all the complete picture for the americaneople, to make sure that it doesn't happen again so that we can understand what went wrong and so that we can understand what lessons do

we need to learn from this. but if each committee, the senate foreign relations deals with the state department piece and the senate armed services committee deals with the armed services piece, meaning why did the greatest military in the world, why weren't they in a position to respond when the attackccurred over seven hours, that's an important question that has to be answered in the military context, and then also thinking about the intelligence piece. the intelligence beforehand about the prior attac, what was happening at the annex, what response, what information was provided also to the president in terms of the prior attackso that he could be informed to make sure that the consulate was protected and why wasn't the consulate protected. if we conduct this separately, we will not have a full picture to the american people to make sure that we take the lessons learned and that this does not happen again. we saw that. that's why we had a post-9/11 commission is because many agencies were involved in wanting to get to the bottom of

it. this is so important with four brave americans who have been killed, so many questions. more questions raised than answers right now. and most of all, we need to make sure that the complete picture of facts come forward. as the senator from south carolina said, many people have very different impressions about this, and there are a lot of conspiracy theories, so a full bipartisan committee that has full jurisdiction over every area of this to come up with a complete picture and recommendations make sense and it is a way to go that we can -- we can answer these important questions to the american people and of course the families of those who lost their loved ones in benghazi. finally, i would say with respect to my colleague from arizona, senator mccain, today the president did say that with respect to susan -- ambassador susan rice on the sunday shows,

that she did that on behalf of the white house. one of the questions that needs to be answered, within hours, there were emails that went to the white house from the state department that explained that a terrorist group ansar al-sharia was taking responsility for this attack. so i think question that needs to be answered is why then would the ambassador to the u.n. on behalf of the white house five days after the attacks even though this email went to the white house within hours, that a terrorist group is taking responsibility, go on every major news station and say that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video. and she expressly says this was not a pplanned or premeditated attack. why was that done? i think those are important questions that need to be addressed by this committee as well because clearly this was not what happened. it was a misstatement of what occurred. we need tonderstand why that

was done, and the american people deserve answers on this when you have four brave americans who were murdered by a terrorist attack. mr. mccain: i only have one additional comment, and that is i understand that the president's pressonference today, that he said not to -- quote -- pick on his ambassador to the united nations, to -- quote -- pick on him. that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. i'm a united states senator. the senator from new hampshire is. we have our obligations. we have our duties, representing the people that sent us here. we're not picking on anybody. and i doubt if the families of

these brave americans who were murdered would believe that we are -- quote -- "picking on anyone, that when we are trying to find out the facts, the american people deserve to know the facts. we can't ever let this happen again. we can't let a security siation evolve that our lives are in change. we can't ignore recommendations. we can't not have sufficient military available on a september 11 where we know the tensions are incredibly high. the american people owe -- are owed an explanation, and it's our duty to try toet that explanation for them. and if someone carried a message to the american people that was totally and utterly false with no bis in fact, then that person also has to be held accountable as well. but first and foremost, the president of the united states, the commander in chief, is the most responsible, and i hope the president has no illusions about

our view of his responsibility, which i believe are those of the american people as well. so we need the select committee. there is no credibility left because of all the conflicting stories that have come out and the different rumors and different statements and contradictory statements and finger pnting. the american people deserve answers. not only because of those who were murdered but to make sure that a trady like this never happens again. and i repeat, everybody has their responsibilities. we have ours. the president has his. we intend toursue this until the american people have the answers that they deserve and they have confidence that these kinds of mistakes will never be repeated. we take that very seriously. we have some disagreement when it's called -- quote --

"picking on >> he presided over the senate. nowadays the vice-president does not bother with that unless the vote is needed to break a tie. truman never learned anything from fdr or from -- a transition within zero knowledge. that does not happen anymore. you get to the phone right away. he picked up the phone at the other and they said, good to the white house as soon as you can. so he grabbed his hat and it- out. -- dashed out. he was taken upstairs to the

second floor, the family for. he was met by eleanor roosevelt. he looked up and said, harry, the president is dead. he was in total shock. he said, what can i do for you? she said, what can we do for you? you are in trouble now. >> from his early life of his presidency, aida donald looks at the life of harry truman. >> in a few moments, a forum on women and the 2012 election. in a little less than an hour and a half, ron paul on his career but interpublic service. a short news conference with angus king.

after that, steve latourette on the so-called fiscal cliff. >> the senate armed services committee holds a hearing tomorrow on general joseph dunford. he is assistant commandant of the ring corps and a lead a regiment of in the 2003 -- the marine corps and lead a regiment in 2003 in iaq. >> featured authors include bill oreilly, reyna grande, joane walsh, and christopher hitchens.

join us on line with the exclusive author chats on facebook with hanna rosin and david maraniss on ook tv. now, a forum on women and the 2012 election. this is a little less than one hour and a half. >> i realize we are standing room only, which is great. my name is stephanie schriock. [applause] i am the president of emily's list.

thank you on behalf of emily's list for joining us this morning. we're so excited to be here. we won. [applause] we won across the board. it was an historic night. we're glad to bring folks together today to share in that celebration. we want to talk about what we learned through this election as we move forward. this election was really about women. it was about women voters and it was about women candidates and women leaders. that is an incredible place for all of us. we will have a few special guests here today and then we will sit down with an incredible group of women leaders to talk about research and other things

we saw regarding women voters. just to step back and think about emily's list and are 27 years, it is a simple proposition. we elect pro-choice democratic women to office. that is our goal and our mission. we do it by recruiting women, by training, by supporting our candidates, and by building a network that gives financial and moral support to women who want to take this time. i was just talking to elizabeth warren on saturday and reminiscing about our very first conversation, which was during the recruitment phase. she reminded me that i said that she could win this race, and it would not be that bad. i said to elizabeth, i do not remember saying that it was not going to be bad. that is what we do. those are the conversations that are so meaningful. it is really those -- we are with you the entire way. we're so proud of all of them. we have mobilized a network of 2 million women and some really

good men in our membership. they are focused to electing women across the country. we put together the programs to turn out women voters. we look at this 2012 and think about this. we've just elected an historic number of women. that is an incredible step for us. 80% of our endorsed candidates were successful last week. i will take that record any day. that has been a lot of hard work to get there. i am sure she will be happy to this week. we have 16 coming in this week, three of them a -- under the age of 40. that is what our network brings together. women with such a diverse paths, that is going to bring this country together. in new hampshire, we have the first states in the union that has a full delegation and a woman governor. that is an incredible story. it has taken us a while to get there, and we do that by having massive growth. we have grown five times over in the last two years. those folks help us raise more than $51 million. we could not have done this

without the women voters. the women voters were key. we realize from the research we did on an election night. we are going to hear this is not a one-issue election. our research shows the economic issues matter just as much as two women -- as much to women as social issues. 78% of the women polled rates equal pay among the most important issues, and who can disagree? 80 per cent sign said the same thing about medicare. while women understood and rejected all aspects, we found they were even more motivated for a candidate. 76% of the women we polled said they voted for a candidate, and only 16% said they voted against a candidate. that is incredibly important. that means we are on the right side of the agenda war with these women. 89% rated that as very important that they have the right priorities for the future. they really understand something big happen. when we told them we had a

historic amount of women, 66% felt that would make a positive difference, and only 80% of the opposite. people know the importance, and this is going to move women forward. they reacted by sending a group of people to washington they knew and could trust to have the right priorities. >> we have the first state to that has a full female delegation and a woman governor. that is an incredible story. it has taken us a while to get there. we did it by having this massive growth of membership. i just said, we have 2 million women and men that are with emily's list. that means we have grown five times over. that is the kind of growth that was the engine behind this. those folks help us raise over $51 million for our organization and our candidates this year. it has been an incredible cycle. we could not have won all of

these races without the women voters. the women voters were key in this. we realize from the research we did on election night -- we will hear more and more about the other research. this was not a one issue election. i think this is important. the economic issues matter just as much to women as the social issues. they are both incredibly important. 78% of the women polled reject this is post-election. they rank equal pay among the most important issues. who can disagree with them? 80% said the same thing about medicare. while women understood and rejected all aspects of the gop agenda, we found out they were even more motivated for a candidate. this is important.

76% reported they voted for a candidate and only 16% said they voted a against a candidate. that is an incredibly important piece. we are on the right side of the agenda were with these women. more than any one issue, women were expected to vote for candidates they thought had the right priority. 89% said it was very important, they had the right priorities for the future. they really understand something big happened last week. when we told response that we had a historic number of democratic women elected, 56% thought that was going to make a positive difference for this country. on may 8% felt the opposite. i do not know who the 8% are. people know the importance of electing women. this will move our country

forward. women saw the gop agenda and the harm it would do to their rights and freedom. they reacted by sending a group of people to washington they knew in they could trust. from president obama to our historic numbers of democratic women. out of the problems, we ask them about everything. i am sure they were thrilled to have to do one more poll. the candidate they voted against, they were really concerned those candidates were going to take us back to the failed policies of the past. they got it. they do not want to roll the clock back. as they want to move forward. rather than social issues or taxes, when then recognize the total man man agenda is what they did not -- women recognize the total mad man agenda they did not want. we just need to keep building and talking in to our fellow sisters across the country and

the men who stand with us, because they know we can make a difference. we do have a couple of special guests, and if i am correct, i can hear one walking down the hallway. let me do something quick. you are going to hear from the senator, who is a dear friend of mine. she was also coming in and have the opportunity to get to know her and her staff, an incredible leader for this country, and she has one hell of our race from the very beginning. from the very beginning, she knew what she had to do. do not think it is just by chance. there is a reason she still in the united states senate. she figured this out early. she made it happen. she knows missouri better than

anyone else. she is an independent voice. she is one of the smartest people when it comes to understanding where the voters are. you are going to hear from her in just a moment, but there is another leader who just came and who will announce very shortly. we are going to have debby speak shortly, but before i do that, i am going to have senator

mike castle, on up -- mccaskell, and tear on for making sure todd a kid is not in the senate. -- akin is not in the senate. >> she raised the bar so high that she has a lot of work to do. i do want to recognize all the people who work for emily's list besides stephanie, because you are special. listo not come to emily's because you want to make big money. you come because you want to make a difference. thank you. i think it is important to do that.

i am the senator who brought you todd akin. congressman akin became well known across the country after he opened a window into his beliefs. it wasn't what he said that was a problem. it was what he believed, and it crystallized for voters what the real contrast was. for a moment, it was like, now i understand. it was not because women are typically 56% of the electorate. it is because they become motivated. it was a list of things that motivated the women. this is someone who said he believed employers should have a freedom to discriminate based on gender, that the government should not interfere in the workplace and forms of -- in terms of equal pay. this is a man who said we should

abolish the minimum wage. this list of things, it was a list of things that disqualify him to voters. if i have any message, it is that we cannot get so focused on one issue that we lose sight of what the motivation is. it is about security. it is about figuring out how to get the kids to college. it is about whether or not they

are working two or three jobs so they are not struggling to get their child to day care while they are figuring out the bus routes. after the election was over and after we were all exhausted, what was interesting was the reaction of the republican leadership. we heard a lot of talk about we need to do a lot of outreach. i have not heard any kind of acknowledgment they do not get why women are rejecting their agenda in record numbers. if you look around the campaign, whether it was donnie brazil, who is running a

presidential campaign in this country almost a decade ago. the reason our country gets it is because we respect women, and we need women in decisionmaking positions. i will never forget looking at the convention floor and looking at the republican and convention and saying this is why i do what i do, because i am proud to be part of a party that wants to be america, and as long as we keep focusing on those issues, and as long as we fight every day to make sure women in this country have an equal seat in this country, not just because there are one or two of them, but because they are the ones actually moving the levels of power, and that is what emily's list does. you have good people to move to the levers of power, and our country is better for it. i am so grateful. i have said i would not be in

the senate in the first place without you. thank you from the bottom of my heart, and let's keep working as well. >> thank you so much, and we are >> thank you so much, and we are so proud. our entire membership is so proud. our membership and raise more money than we have ever raised

for anybody. we are so proud for her. i want to make one more hit new introduction of somebody who has become a friend. she has always been a role model, and she has been an incredible leader. debbie wasserman schulze has taken on many jobs. she is a great congresswoman from florida. she is a mother, never an easy job, and she has decided yes when asked to be the share of -- the chair of our party at the national democratic committee, and never an easy job. she has done an incredible job, and i just want you to think about what she has done at the helm of our great party.

not only does she ensure the reelection of barack obama, but she did it by making sure there was a constant conversation about what women were facing in which their health care and their lives every day, making sure everyone in this country knew what was at stake. i think she will deliver florida, which is pretty impressive. she has been an incredible leader, and someone to look at, and we really do see her as a role model, so we hope even though i knew she has three major jobs, and i know they are very much hoping she keeps all three jobs, because we cannot imagine seeing the next two years where we still have to fight to get a house back.

we have one more thing we need to do. having debby wasserman schulz will help us get there. thank you so much. >> i brought carnes of -- cards up. first we need to celebrate stephanie, because i know these things are mutual love says, -- fests, but if women do not celebrate one another, we have already seen nobody celebrates us. any organization that goes through generational change faces risk. when emily's list was founded, this was an organization that became iconic and almost interchangeably identified with her. i can tell you i spent all of my formative years admiring and

loving ellen. the risk that an organization faces when the generation that began the organization moved on is that it is so tied to that person it could never be the same. not only is it a credit to ellen, they were very wise about who they chose to succeed her, the person emily's list chose is incredible, the right leader for the right time, and this election's results could not be a more clear example of that. congratulations.

we cannot say enough about stephanie's success. let's go through that success. i think it is important. women came out for president obama with 55 votes. 184 women ran for congressional office, and 40% of the u.s. population has at least one when and senator. -- one woman senator. new hampshire has and all women delegation and a woman governor as well as a female state house. they are still women. we are moving in the right direction. this is my favorite. when the hundred 13th congress and gavels in, it will be with when the women senators -- with 20 women senators.

that is particularly gratifying -- i remember being in a similar discussion two years ago agonizing that we had to drop the number of women in congress for the first-time since 1992, and some of us thought, how did we lose the momentum? how are we going to get it back? there was a lot of soul- searching, but rather than spend two years hand wringing, when then got to work, and we got to work recruiting. we were clearly helped by the republicans, because out of the gate they had a decision to make. they could have made it more moderate. the third bill out of the gate

was a bill that would have redefined it. that sent the clearest signal about what was in store for us across the country. they could have left it at that. the assault on planned parenthood, the idea we should we site the battle of whether we have access to birth control and. i will conclude with this. you have an amazing panel led by dee dee myers, who has been an incredible leader and is also a mom. the whole ginger rogers that women do everything men do but they do it in high heels to back words, that is what it is all about. i would love to have a man spent a day in the life of the

women in this room and try to get done what we balance in order to make sure we can make everything work and help the people we care about thrive, but the important thing here is that we continue to move forward. we have to double down in 2014. we have got to make sure we recruit more women to run for office. it is not just a slogan that when when run -- when women run they win. take a good look when the house convenes after the congress is sworn in at what our side of the eye looks like versos the republican side. -- our side of the idol looks -- the aisle looks like versus the republican side. it is pretty amazing. no matter what i do, i will be

helping you double down, doing everything i can to make sure we move forward. i can look out and see a lot of other moms in the audience, and now that we make sure we make life better for the generation of young girls we are raising. every time we are in a program like this, we need to remind ourselves to reach behind us and pull another woman of the next round of the latter. it is critical. it is about filling our ranks so we have so many opportunities for women in the future. thank you so much. congratulations.

i am going to the democratic caucus. >> what is next? thank you all for being here again. i am going to introduce our panel. you have been introduced, but i want to make a couple points. to quintuple the membership, before she was president of emily's list, stephanie was confident she was the last -- the best democratic campaign in the country. she brought that experience to emily's list. next is an award winning media consultant with 20 years of

experience. she had to jobs. -- two jobs. we will hear more from her about the democratic priorities. next to her is the vice president of planned parenthood federation of america. she is an award winning writer and director as well, and the secretary treasurer of ask me, which represents 1.6 million workers. welcome to all of you. thank you for being here. we just heard a lot about where you are.

going into the election cycle there were two women in the united states senate. we have made great progress. how do we keep going? >> i was talking about is just the other day. -- i was talking about is just the other day. she said, we knew it was coming a couple years ago. i think that is part of where we are right now. the good news is because of the work we have done, we have a pipeline for women. they came up with surprise open

seats in hawaii and wisconsin. they were ready to take that opportunity. we have great and women in the house of representatives today that i expect to see running for the senate very soon. >> how important is recruiting? what did you find in this cycle? >> we start training women who are running for the legislature, and it starts there, and we keep having these conversations, but it does affect the conversation. this allows us to go in when the moments come and say, this is a sign you have got to go. they think about it, and we go back. we make them do it, but the

truth is we have an incredible pool of women. we have to do a lot more work to ensure we have a larger pipeline, particularly in various parts of the country, but i look at california. we have a great female delegation out there, but we also have those who have been there for 20 years. many of them are elected 20 years ago. how long are they going to stay, and are we prepared for the alabama -- are we prepared for that? >> some people said this is a good year for women because men said dumb things. is this about a couple of men saying dumb things? >> this is the year women when fire broke. it was the same way -- when men

went -- women went viral. could say this was the year of the woman candidate. this was the year of the diverse woman. this was the year of the woman's uterus. a lot more got involved whereas years ago it was about a group of women running. now it is about a lot of women participating in a lot of new ways. some of that is just because of a changed landscape of internet and all that, but i think it is a critically important point, which is those guys were! at the end of a diatribe against women and women's health care. i would argue i think we are making a mistake to think about

this as economic issues and social issues. $600 and birth control costs is that new car down payment. almost half of the gains for women economically in terms of pay have been directly traded back to the pill and roe. this is not just about, i think i will think about social issues if you catch breast cancer when it is stage one and not stage three, that has a lot of economics. this is a different environment, and we should not let the republicans say, we can just hide this. i do not want to hear how you hide your views. i want to hear how you change

your views. >> when you see the message on how to integrate these ideas that they are part of the issues that affect your lives? >> when we were targeting battleground states, these women were reacting to what voters were reacting to. when we are talking about getting more and women into the pipeline, i want to go back to the big story of this campaign and recruiting and getting more women involved and waking up that independent voter, who is becoming more conscious of these issues but also thinking about running and which party they might align with the reagan -- they might align with. one thing we talked about is the amount of money spent on these campaigns that paralyzes the candidates, because they

look at it like, how can i even take that on? part of their job is to be able to help candidates raise that kind of money, communique to independent female voters that will elect them and also be able to teach the tactics of how do we communicate early and talk about these issues that will resonate with independent female voters. >> with the point this is not just about women candidates but across the board, how important is it that the labor movement -- how important is turning out women to the movement? one of our jobs is to help them, which will let them, and

be able to teach the tactics of how we communicate our opponents and talk about these issues that will resonate with these independent female voters. >> turning out women, i think this was not just about women candidates, but women about the board. how important is this labor movement? how important is turning out women to the labor movement?

>> very important. it represents 1.6 million voters across this country. more than half are women. we made sure our members knew about the issue, were competent in explaining it to their communities, and made sure they went out to vote and reached out their hands and brought other people with them. >> a particular priority was turning out women. why did the emphasis shift. such a bigger part of this, this not quite told story. the sense of empowerment. >> it is the best recipe for turnout. it came home to roost in this election cycle. >> in 2010, they did hide the ball. they said, we are all about the economy. hr-1, hr-2, defund planned parenthood. they were the same old thing. these last two years, the defunding thing was repaired, birth control refusal, how we became an issue, it just became part of this narrative.

what is going on? what do they believe? here are some people talking to my real life and seem to actually get what i deal with on a day-to-day basis. that is a one-two punch. >> to even add to all of the health-care issues, birth control is only a social issue if you do not have to pay for it. these are all economic. on top of that and underneath, you also have the attacks on bargaining. so many of our women are members of unions. they are already not getting the same pay as it is. equal pay is already an issue. now we have a tax on collective bargaining. then there is a concept about voucherizing medicare.

some of our focus groups were stunning. we asked what their biggest concerns were. they said, i am afraid i will not be able to retire. people in their 60's and in their 30's. 30-year-olds worrying about this. there is no sense of security. that is an important part. economic security, safety, and having some voice in your future. a huge piece of what we sought in particular the wisconsin and ohio, it is huge. >> when you talk about health care, social issues, we are talking about everyday lives. i think, with my experience, and my sister and brothers, we are talking about the everyday

person and getting through the day and being able to pay your bills and go to the doctor. my experience traveling through this campaign, i will share a story for you. there is a disabled son. a 26-year-old. cerebral palsy. his mother, a middle-aged woman, she wants equal pay. on top of that fear is, will i have health care. if i am not healthy, who will help my son? >> did you find you had

different messages for different age groups? were those concerns the same? >> it was interesting. i had the unique opportunity of running around the country in these battleground states. the younger women would say, i cannot believe we are talking about these issues that my mother talked to me about and the battles were beaten back in the 1970's. the mother said, i dealt with this 30 years ago. from both sides of the generational gap, there was this frustration and a rejection of the candidates and the policies from the past, regardless of whether it was mitt romney -- mitt romney or

any other of these jokers and around the country. they said, not them. it has to be someone else. it closed and the age gap that might of existed. >> women's health issues, do you find there is an age divide on these issues? >> this year we did more significant modelling than in the past. not only did did we do the traditional choice model for legal abortion, but we also looked around -- at favorability around planned parenthood and birth control. and the president's policy of expanded access. we crunched all of that together in the formula. it did reveal an entire group of people who were frankly less

concerned on the abortion front. they were not bad, but less concerned, but definitely from an age-perspective, very concerned about birth control. we were in tight partnership with emily's list, sharing models and targets and working on the independent side. there was definitely some age gap. there was an enthusiasm to surpass the turnout of younger voters from four years ago that republicans bet against young people and all of us bet on them. >> i feel like, from a tactical standpoint, i do not think they

had any were close to the kind of polling and data that we had we had an entire analytics department that went on for an entire year. people are mostly ph.d.'s mining data, particular focus on independent voters. we were able to adjust our conversation, whether it was access to birth control, whatever it might be for women health, we were able to communicate to them and really

have this long-term conversation with them about issues they were telling us were important. >> were those issues democratic women were responding to? >> not necessarily. the democratic women, from a tactical standpoint, we were going out to independent female voters and in some cases republican female voters because they were reacting so strongly to our message. we expanded that universe. >> there are economic issues and social issues. we can focus on the economic issues and we will try to count down until somebody says something crazy. they are not understanding that, for women and families, these are all tied together and we look at the post-election polling that we are just really diving into now.

it is clear that all of this is tied together for women voters. you cannot separate them out. you cannot separate -- you cannot separate out your economic security with access to health care. >> it is interesting in our earliest focus groups that we did back in june, we talked to women and thought, this is the role these issues have. for some people, they were determinative. there was a whole group that it looked like we could expand the amount of time they were willing to give the president and the economy to recover. we could hold them in undecided by making mitt romney questionable in their minds. it could hold the elevator doors open.

campaignresident's have that closing argument to tip them over. that was the role we played in there with these independent women. >> is there a difference in the way you talk to voters if you are trying to get them vote for president obama versus trying to get them to vote for a woman running for the senator or the house? >> who should start? [laughter] >> in the tammy baldwin

campaign, there are differences and similarities on the obama campaign. overall, it was a rejection of the policies and canada's of the-- candidate's of the past, whether that was tommy thompson or mitt romney. . .

i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. paul: mr. speaker, tis may be the last time i speak on the house floor. at the end of the year i'll leave congress after 23 years in office over a 36-year period. my goals in 1976 were the same as they are today, promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty. it was my opinion that the course of the u.s. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire.

the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain cessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant, and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history. all this with minimal concerns

for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. a never mentioned bipartisan agreement allows for the well kept secret that keeps e spending going. one side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfe spending. while both sides support the bailouts and the subsidies for the banking and corporate elite, and the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. as the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. a major stumbling block to real change in washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is brke. this has made compromising just to agree to increased spending inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting

spending. the country and congress will remain divisive since there is no newt left to divvy up. without this recognition the spenders in washington will continue to march towards a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming january. i thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution have been so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. if liberty is what he woo claim it is, the principle that protects all personal, socioeconomic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity, and the best chance for peace, should be an easy sell. yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled. should we have authoritarianism or liberty? if authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom

for all individuals, and is controlleded by rich special interest, the people should be begging for liberty. there certainly was a strong enough sentiment for freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful british government. during my time in congress the appetite for libertyy has been quite queak. the understanding of its significance, negligible. yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when i first came to congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and gross, especially in grassroots america. tens of thoands of teenagers and college-aged students are with great enthusiasm welcoming the message of liberty. i have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

freedom, private property, and voluntarily contracts generate wealth. in our early history we were very much aware of this. and the only part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetaryystem had to change. if we were to involve ourselves in excessive economiesic and military spending, that is why congress gave us the deral reserve and the income tax. when americans and many government officials agreeing that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claim to be progressive ideas. pure democracy became acceptable. they failed to recognize that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the british. some complain my arguments make no sense since great wealth and

the standard of living improved for many americans over the last 100 years, even wi these new policies. but the damage to the maet economy and the currency has been insidious and steady. it took a long time for consumer wealth to destroy the currency and t our obligations to a point of no return. confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved, most of our wealth today depes on debt. . it allowed concerned for the principle of a free society to be neglected. as long as most people believe the material would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary. the age of redistribution, this neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by

government, to any and all special interests except for those who just wanted to be left alone. that is why today money and politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts. when material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. it is good that material benefits is the rult of liberty but materialism is all that we care -- but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed. the crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. we have ended up with a system that doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no

fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends. if this is notecognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the mile class, and aore intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue. we need an intellectual awakening. without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law, a crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. if it's not accepted that big government fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism and warfarism caused our crisis, we will expect a continuous march toward comparptism and fascism with even more loss of our liberties. prosperity for a large middle class, though, will become an

abstract dream. this continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. congress first directed with bipartisan support bailouts for the wealthy. then, it was the federal reserve with the quantitative easing. approximate at first you don't succeed, try again. qe-1, qe-2, qe-3 and then qe-indefinitely until it, too, fails. there is a cost to all of it. and i assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. the rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won't be pretty. the current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism and the pessimisms -- the two feed on thselves making our situation worse. if the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood, we

cannot solve our problems. the issue of warfare and welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. by only expanding these policies, we cannot expect good results. everyone claims support for freedom, but too often it's for one's ownreedom and not for others. too many believe there must be limits on freedom. they argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality, thus making it acceptable to curtail thugh certain liberties. some decide what and whose freedoms to be limited. these are the politicians whose goal in life is power. their success depends on gaining support from special interests. we don't need more isms. the great news is the answer is

not to be found in more isms. the answers are to be found in more liberty, which costs so much less. under these circumstances, spending goes down, wealth production goes up and the quality of life improves. just this recognition, especially if we move in this direction, increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. the followthrough with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people. but it is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. the more this chan in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be our return to optimism. our job for those of us who believe in a different system than the one that we had for the st 100 years has driven us to this unsustainable crisis

is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated and moral system that provides the answers. we had a taste of it in our early history. we need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause. it worked but we allowed our leaders concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates while ignoring freedom itself. now we have meter, but the door is open out of necessity for an answer. the answer available is based on the constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force provide privileges and benefits to all special interests. after over 100 years, we face a society quite different than the one that was intended by the founders. in many ways tir efforts to protect future generations with the constitution from this danger has failed. skeptics at the time of the constitution was written

1787 warned us of today's possible outcome. the insidous nature of the erosion of our libertiesand the reassurances our great abundance gave us evolved into aangerous period in which we now live. dependency on vernment largeess. today we face a dependence on government largess for almost every need, our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into saving their demands. here are a few examples. undeclared wars are commonplace. welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement. the economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system. debt is growing exponentially. the patriot act and fisa legislation passed without much

debate, resulted in a steady erosion of our fourth amendment rights. tragically, our governme engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints were the american people. the drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost. once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot of resentment for their way. it's now the law of the land that the military can arrest american citizens, hold them indefinitely without charges or trial. rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in washington. supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and w.t.o. trade retaliation call the true free trader isolationists.

sanctions used to punish countries that don't follow our orders. bailouts and guarantees of all of misbehavior are routine. sanctions through monetary policies, mandates has been acceptable policy. i have a few questions. excessive government prompts many questions. why are sick people who are -- who use medical marijuana put in prison? why does the federal government restrict the drinkingf raw milk? why can't american manufacturers rope -- why aren't americans allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the constitution? why is germany concerned enough to consider repatiating their gold held by the fed for her in new york? is it that the trustn the u.s. and dollar supremacy

beginning to wain? why do our political leaders believe it's necessary to thoroughly audit -- why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold? why can't americans decide which type of light bulbing they can buy? why is it the t.s.a. permitted to abuse the rights of any american travel by air? why should there be mandatory sentences, even up to life for crimes without victims as our drug laws require? why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes? why is it political suicide for anyone to critical apac? why haven't we given up on the drug war since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? how can making our entire society a prison solve the problem? why do weacrifice so much

getting this -- getting necessarily involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most dangerous deadly border in the world -- the one between mexico and the united states? why does congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the executive branch? why does changing the party in power never change policy? could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? why did the big banks, the large corporations and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes? why do so many in the government and officls believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth? why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty? why can't people understand

that war always destroys wealth and liberty? why is there no little concern for the executive order that gives the president auority to establish a killing list, including american citizens, of those targeted for assassination? why is patriotism thought to be blind loyaltyo the government and the politicians who run it rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? real priotism is the willingness to hallenge the government when it's wrong. why is it that people won't or can't take care otheir own needs that people in government are able to do it for them? why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people? why do so many members defend free markets but not civil liberties? why do so many members defend civil liberties but not free markets? aren't they the same?

why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? why are there not more individuals that seek to intellectually influence individuals to bring about positive changes, those that seek changes -- than those who seek power and force others to obey their commands? why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars both which require authoritarians to use violence or the threat of violence go unchallenged? aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world's great religions. why do we allow the government and e federal reserve to disseminate false information dealing with economic and foreign policy? why is democracy held in such high esteem when it's the eny -- when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the

majority? why should anyone be surprised that congress has no credibility since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust and anger and frustration? yes, there is. and there's a y to reverse these attitudes. the negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. identityification of the problems and recognizing-- identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easily. we should have more trust in ourselves, less in the government. too many people have -- far far too long placed too much confence and trust in government and not enough for themselves. fortunately now are becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. the blame is shared by both

political parties. many americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. without this first step, solutions are impossible. . it pro-- promotes prosperity. the task is not that difficult if politics doesn't get in the way. we have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons. politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. . this replaces the confidence in a free society. too many places of authority became convinced that only they, armed are arbitrary government power can bring about fairness while facilitating wealth production. . this always proves to be a utopian dream.

it impoverishes the people. . no surprise wloo goes on in washington is by aggressive partisan ship and policy king with philosophic differences being minor. cazianism continues to thrive although today it's facing healthy enthusiastic rebuttals. believers in military canesinism continue to desperately promote their policy as the economy languishes in a deep slumber. they usehumanitarian arguments to justify them. humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government man dates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. this is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. but initiating violence for

humanitarian reason is still violence. good intentions are no excuse and are justas harmful as when the people use -- and force with bad intentions. the results are always negative. the only way use of force is the source of man's political problems. sadly, many religious groups, secularizations, and psychopathic ahoritarians, endorse government initiated force to change the world. even when the desired goals are well-intentioned or especially when they are well-intentioned the results are dismal. the good ruts sought never materialized. the new problems created require even more government as a solution. the net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds. this is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at

will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens. it is rather strange unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go into e's neighb's house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke, and drink, or how to spend their money. yet rarely is it asked why is it morrallly acceptable that a stranger with a badge and gun could do the same thing in the name of law and order. any resistance is now with brute force, even imprisonment. this is done more frequently evy day without a search warrant. no government monopoly over initiating violence is what we need . realizing a government rn monopoly for aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty

associated with chaos, anger, and breakdown of civil society. preventing such authority and expecting a saintly behavior from the brewer contracts and politicians, politicians is a pipe dream. we now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats and the t.s.a., c.i.a., f.b.i., fish and wildlife, corps of engineers, etc.,p citizens are protch guilty until proven innocent in the constitutional administrative corgets. government in a free society should have no authority to meddle into social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. all things peaceful, even when controversial should be permitted. we must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just as we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. but even in these areas government is starting to use a

backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech, a very dangerous trend. since 9/11, monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required. the proliferation of federal crimes. the constitution established four federal crimes. today the experts can't even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books. they number into the thousands. no one person request comprehend the enormity of the legal system, especially the tax code. due to the ill-advised drug wars and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code, we have over six million people under correctional suspension. more than the soviets ever had and more than any other nation today. including china. i don't understand the complacency of the congress and willingness to continue their obsession th passing more federal laws, more sentencing

laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems. the federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code 72,000 pages, and expands every year. when will the people start shouting enough a is enough and demand congress to cease and desist. we should be doge -- what we should be doing is achieving liberty. liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the excessive use of force. if one seeks libertyhe precise -- there are two choices available. one, a government designed to protect liberty is a natural right as its soul objective. people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering th another person's liberty. government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownerships,

settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression. number two, a goverent that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrary use force over the people and for a nation. though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited,t inevitably metastasizes into a limited political cancer. this is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. though meant to be eliminated, 100% sacrifice of the principle that would be tyrants find irresistible. it is used vigorously though incrementally and insidiously. granting power to government officials always proves the adage that power corrupts. once government gets a limited concession for the use of force,

because of the state erosion and steady move forward tyrannical government. only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny the government this arbitrary use o aggression. there is no in between. sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly. today's mess is a result of ericans accepting option number two, even though the founders attempted to give us option number one. the results are not good as our liberties have been inverted, our wealth has been consumed. the wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. then they lend them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. it's amazing that it has worked for this long, but the impasse in washington in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of this worldwide

debt crisis and the dangers we face. the longer this process continues, the harsher the outcome will be. the financial crisis is actually a moral crisis. a financial crisis looms, but few understand it's in reality a moral crisis it's the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis, it will be difficult to event a steading march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it. ultimately the people have to decide which form of government they want. option number one or option number two. there is no other choice. tyranny is a choice of little tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a touch of pregnancy. it is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic plan something a worthy compromise.

what we see today is a result of that type of thinking and the results speak for themselves. a culture of violence, americans now suff from a culture of violence. it is easy to reject the initiation of violence agnst one's neighb, but it's ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely give government officials with monopoly power to iniate violence against the american people practically at will. because it's the government that negotiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. it is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating violence supposedly to do good. they incorrectly believe this authority has come from the consent of the people. the victim of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates. even when dictated by the majority. victims of t.s.a. excesses never

consented to this abuse. this attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to do quood as well. -- good as well. war to prevent war for other purposes is justified. is similar to what we were once told that quote, destroying a village to save a village, close quote, was justified. it was said by u.s. secretary of state that the loss of 500,000 iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990's as a result of american bombs and sanctions was worth it to achieve the good we brought to the people of iran. look at the mess iraq is in today. government use of force the most social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. the fact that violence by gornment is seen as morally justified is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and

becomes a political crisis as well. first, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence. then we give the authority to the government. the use of government violence when things go badly will be used to justify an individual's right to do the same thing. neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another, yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. if this cycle is not reversed, society will break down. when needs are pressing and conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and whims of the majority, it's then that -- it's them not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. as the economy sfrates and the wealth sprepcy increase, as they already are occurring, violence increases as those in need taking in their own hands to get

what they believe is theirs. they will not wait for a government rescue program. when government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. those who take us into undeclared wars will many casualties resulting never lose sleep over the deaths and destruction their bad decions cause. they are convinced that what they do is morally justified in the fact that many suffered just can't be helped. when the street crinals do the same thing? they do have no remorse believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. all moral standards become relative. whether it's bailing out privileges, government subsidies, or benefits for some, from inflating our currency, it's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. violence or a threat of such is unfortunately of little concern

of most members of congress. some argue it's only a matter of fair ghest that those in need are cared for. there are two problems with this. first, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of nefits to the rich than to the poor. second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair to those who end up paying for all the benefits. the costs are ually placed on the backs of the middle class, and are hidden from the public eye. too many people believe government handouts are free. like pulling money out of thin air and there is no cost. that deception is coming to an end. the bills are coming due and that's what the economic slowdown is all about. sadly we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. it is the tool for telling the people how to live what, to eat and drink, what to read, and how to spend their money. to develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force

must be understood and rejected. granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangous concession. limiting government excesses versus a virtuous moral people. our constitution was to limit the whole power and abuse has failed. the founders warned that in a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. the current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. many politicians are aware of the problems we face trying to reform government. the sad part is the suggested reforms almost always leads to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored or not understood. it undermines it has a massive expansion of

debt. the real question is -- if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government, reform or trying to understand what a virtuous and moral people mean and how to promote it? the constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both the rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government while ignoring the principles of a free society. all branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who useheir power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare, warfare state and frequently their own wealth and power. if the people are unhappy with the government performance, it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limits, power and love of freedom. if this is the problem, all the tinkering and the thousandof pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to

soe the problem. it is 70's evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the prosperity we still have is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. this fictitious wealth based the false trust in o currency and credit will play havoc to our society when the bills come to. our lost liberties is yet to be felt. that illusion is now ending. we need to accept a new approach. expect the rapidly expanding homeschool movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary forms needed to rebuild a free society. with constitutional protections. we cannot expect a federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of gornment that threatens our liberties. the internet will provide the alternative to the government media complex that controls the

news and most political propaganda. this is why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulion. many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater -- by supporting war, welfare, corporatism and ignore the need for our virtueous people. i never believed that the world our country can be made more free by politicians if the people had no desire for freedom. under the current circumstances, the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves. if it is liberty that he had truly seek, without this a constitutional protected free society is impossible. if this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem

and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability in the most produckive manner possible, according to one's own talents. productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. freedom and not dependency provides the environment needed to achieve thesegoals. government cannot do this for us. it only gets in the way. when the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy, and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement. achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. most of the change that is to come will not come from the politicians but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. the solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands and aggressive force to most social and economic behavior. without accepting these restraints, inevitably the

consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. it is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-relyant and productive become the vills. in conclusion, one of the greatest dangers that the american people face today the goal of a free society. there are five. the continuous attack on our civil liberties which threaten the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny. number two, violent anti-americanism that has engulfed the world. because the at the number none of broeback is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. national bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national

security will result. number three, the ease in which we go to war without a dearation by congress but accepting international authority from the u.n. or na or even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression. a financial political crisis as a -- number four, a financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts and gross discrepancy in gross dispribution go from the mill class to the rich. the danger of central economic planning by the federal reserve must be understood. world government taking over local and u.s. sompt by getting involved in the -- sovergnty by getting involved inhe issues of r, welfare, banking, taxes, property, ownersp and private -- private ownership of guns must be addressed. happily, there's an answer for these very dangerous trends. what a wonderful world it would

be if we accepted the moral premise of act of aggression. a suggestion is always too simplistic, utian, dangerous and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. the answer to that is after thousands of years, the acceptance of government force to rule over the people at the sacrifice of liberty was considered moral only option foachieving peace and prosperity. what can be more utoan than that? considering the results, especially looking at the state sponsored killing of nearly every government during the 20th century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of people. it's time to reconsider this grant of autrity to the state. no good has ever come from granting monopoly power for the state to mold human behavior. such power whe left unchecked becomes the sea of an ugly tyranny. this method of governance has been adequately tested and the

results are in. the reality dictates we try liberty. the idealism of nonaggression and objecting the use of force should be tried. the idealism of more government sanction violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. the theory of a he so site being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. it's time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do today. today the principles of habeas corpus established when king john signed the magna carta in 1215 is under attack in our own government. there is everyeason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in govnment authority and challenge the obsession of war and welfare. what i'm talki about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance. the founders were convinced

that a free society could not,ist without a moral people. just writing rules won't work if the people choose to use them. those who rk in washington -- benjamin frklin claimed, only a virtueous people are can have freedom. john adams said our constitution was made for a moral and religious people is wholly inadequate for a government of any other. and moral people just reject all violence in an effort to mold people's beliefs. one that ridicules going to war is not a moral society. all great religions endorsed the golden rule. the same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. they cannot be exempt. the solution is not in the hands of the government. the solution falls on each and

every individual with guidance of family, friends and community. the number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others willollow. this is of greater importance in the working on changing the government. that is secondary to promoting a virtueous society. if we can achieve this then the government will change. it doesn't mean that holding office holds no value. at sometimes it nudges policy in the right direction but when it's true while seeking office is done for money or power, it becomes useful if not harmful. when political action is taken for the right reasons, it's easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. it's also become clear while progress is best achieved while working with coalitions which bring people together without anyone sacrificing his principles. political action to be truly beneficial must be directed toward anging the heart and minds of the people, recognizing that its virtue and

morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish. the constitution or moral laws, per se, have no value if the people's attitudes aren't changed. to achieve libty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to overcome. number one is envy which leads to hate and classarfare. number two is intolerance which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. this must be replaced by a better understanng of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. freedom when understood brings people together. when tried freedom is popular. the problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy. where a social interventiost are swayed by habit and lifestyle. the misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activity motivates many

to legislate moral staards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. neither envolunteerism. i have come to a firm conviction after trying to figure out the plain truth of things. the best chance of achieving peace and prosperity for the maximum number of people worldwide is to pursue the cause of liberty. if you think this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land, and i yield back the balance of my time. the spker pro tempore: jash. -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

. .

host: you are leaving congress. you are leaving this behind. are you feeling that things are becoming more polarized or do you feel that people are taking part, getting involved? and suppressing their views? guest: it is worse. the republicans and democrats have done the least. the differences have been sharpened by the redistricting. the other thing, there's now this litmus test in each party that did not exist when i got here. so i am a squish. i have been a republican my

whole life. i am not gone to have someone say that i am not a good republican. when you say i have to believed in a x, y and z to be a republican -- no. you have people in your own party shooting at you. and so why am i leaving you behind? it is a little like the guy who walked down the street and he is kidding himself with a board and you say, what are you doing? he says and doing it because it feels so good when i stop. host: our guest is steven latourette. he is in his last term serving congress. do you have a game plan for what is next? guest: i do not. i have been making a couple signs. there is this place called seven corners.

we will see how that works out. host: next call, clifford on our line for democrats. where are you calling from? caller: jacksonville, florida. good morning. was guest: everybody:good. caller: i have a question and comment. the question is this. why, when you all take office, use were the to want to uphold what you all are coming there to do for the people that sent you all there. ok. it is like this right here. i was watching a christian program this morning a woman called then and said what does it mean when they say [indiscernible] if a person takes office and says there want to represent united states and the people of the united states, if they violate that trust, they should have some kind of action taken against them. if i as a citizen break the law, and i am proven to of a broken the law, i go to jail.

people come in congress, not for the people but to profit from the people. if a person in office get caught doing that, falsifying information. they should go to jail. then as treason. host: steven latourette -- the ethics issues work in congress. guest: i understand your point here the system is designed to reach a the fire run on a certain platform, if i stay i like to attend and i do something horrible to kittens once again here, the election takes care of that. would think people would then novotny out and say we are not having the mean kitten guy represent us anymore. that gets to be redistricting question. the truth is in the eye of the beholder. you are the democratic caller that the market a set of facts

and reach a different interpretation than i do. does not mean either bus is lying, which come at from different perspectives. but the difficulty and the point i was trying to make is that jacksonville is a good example, your represented by qr ran aground, but karan brown does not point to be on elected by a republican because there's no way a republican can win in that district. and i think she is a wonderful member of congress. but the only way to the caller's point is that you have a competitive election where people actually have to stand up and say, this is what i am going to do and then there will be held accountable if they do not to do it because there will be defeated in the general election host: dakota from oregon. caller: i am a sophomore college student. i have been wanting to get into politics but i feel like i cannot do that because of the ever-growing attention on student loans.

and it is becoming ever more clear to me that if things are not done a, i may have to drop out of college because i cannot afford, with one small income such as mind to pay it back. i am wanting to ask you, do you think that during this lame duck session that he would be willing to work with my congressman, to try to find a way to make it more affordable for college students to not feel scared about paying back their college loans from the -- i want to be able to sit in the seat where you are now but i feel that i cannot do that with this ever- growing problem. with like to hear your thoughts on this. guest: i appreciate your call and i think you may be the only republican an organic. -- in oregon. congratulations on that. and my seat is open, so come on. it is a crime today for someone in a middle-class family to take

on a student loans. they come out of college grads cooler postgraduate education with hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans. that is something that has got to be addressed. i would cause it to you that if we fix the fiscal cliff problem, it then -- their then becomes money available to lower interest on student loans. so that you do not have that bird and a. -- that burden. but again, if we are not quite to fix the big problem, how are we going to fix your little problem. last june was a good example. your interest rates were set to increase. nobody wanted that. but we had to fight about it. we had to divide the country into rich and poor people. if we can define the silver bullet to solve this fiscal cliff thing and the lame duck or they are after, it probably will get better.

host: let us go to john on our line for independents. caller: congressman, why is it that those who have made their mind from the overseas trading are not paying enough to cover our military is keeping the oceans free of piracy and that is the reason a lot of our military is out there watching for these problems. another thing is and we bailed out the banks, the banks got saved, and yet small people's investments in the banks, savings accounts, mine is giving one one-hundredth of 1%. that is ridiculous. can you talk about that, please? guest: i can. i do not know if i get the first part, those allies around the world that we are spending our

treasury on to defend the cs -- should contribute more -- i am with it. i voted against the program even though i was urged to vote for tarp. because there were no rules. was basically you are $700 billion and good luck. and while that may save the banking system and they paid the money back with interest, my 401k has become a 201k because my savings have been wiped out. and many will have to work longer than anticipated because of that problem. and i will tell you that again, my expectation is that whatever bank you are, and you have $3 or $4 billion -- there should be some expectation that you should be putting the money back out on the streets in the form of affordable loans so that the rest of us can try to make our money back. host: steven latourette,

represents ohio's 14th district of the republican. thank you for being here. >> in a few moments republican members of the house and the congressional agenda for the rest of this land that session and into the new year. and about one hour president obama's news conferences today afternoon at the white house. on "washington journal" we will be joined by ron paul of texas. we will take your questions about today's hearing on the attack and the united states consulate in libya. you will hear what the fiscal cliff. and bernie sanders of vermont. also at jennifer tolbert on health insurance exchanges.

washington journal every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the armed services committee holds a hearing this morning. replacing general john allen, that is live on c-span 3 at 9:30. the miami book fair international is live this weekend on book tv week two days of non-fiction books. and your calls, e mails and tweets. featured authors include bill o'reilly, john walsh and a look at christopher hichens. our live coverage starts saturday morning at 10 eastern

on the c-span 2's book tv. now look of the congressional agenda for the last of the glenn beck session and for next year. this monthly meeting of conservative members of congress read by tim of kansas. it is a little less than one hour. >> thank you. i appreciate my colleagues joining me. we are not in the senate. i appreciate folks trying to keep answers to 30 seconds or less so we can move around. this is live on the internet, on c-span. this is on scripted. open to all questions. look forward to getting started. >> we will turn it right over to questions.

>> yes. [inaudible] >> talk about the fiscal cliff and where you draw the line of. >> for many years the republicans have been very clear. we think with a spending and revenue problem in washington, d.c. the president has proposed his same bill proposals but had failed to receive any votes in the house and senate. but at the end of the day the principles that republicans have, especially conservatives, the idea that we do not need a tax increase to solve our spending problems. that is certainly my first driving principle. and we will move from there.

>> if you want to know the alpha and omega of the budget condition, you need to know 3 numbers. 39, 32, 82. 39 percent cited the increase of inflation and population combined over the past 10 years. 32 is the increase in revenue over the same time span. despite the tax cuts. keepings pretty closely kic up with the inflation and population increase. the 82 is what is propelling us and with sovereign debt crisis. >> you know, the question i have been asking for the past year is, we keep hearing from the president and the democrats that they want a balanced approach. when i hear a balanced approach, i have not yet seen a plan. i have no idea or the president intends to cut spending.

but no idea where the democrats intend to cut spending. if you look good with the democrats are saying in the senate, one by one of their standing up and saying we do not need to reform social security, medicare, he is not the issues and are facing america that we need to solve. i think it is your job as reporters to ask the democrats where are you willing to spend? i remember during the debate and my friends here may disagree with me with what i am about to say, but during the debate with a presidential candidate, in the primary, and the all republican primary candidates were asked are you willing to support a 10- 1 deal? no one raised their hand. as a conservative i would have raised my hand. i would've said yes, if the $10 and spending cuts happened today, not 10 years from now.

if the $10 in spending cuts or actual real cuts in spending and not projected cuts in growth. if we would answer that that way we would have been able to show the american people that the democrats are playing a canard on the american people. and not willing to cut any spending at all. we need to start shifting a discussion. the media did a great job of asking mitt romney or his plan was. they did not ask, i did not see many ask the president where his plan was. what to or the president and the democrats are willing to cut. if the president came to me with a 10-1 deal, he will cut $10 today, i would probably consider that. but that deal will never come, because they do not have to cut a single dime in government spending a. >> i believe this summer that

the general petroleos was david petraeus was having an affair. if the new and he did not tell, should holder resign? >> should of reside along time ago. choose the incompetents or the complete neglect and the duty during his administration. if you think about it, i do not know what his duty is to tell the united states president what he knows, but he has a duty to tell the intelligence committee what he knows about issues like this. and he failed to do that. i think the key to this is going to be the chairwoman of the intelligence committee in the senate. she is not happy. and i know the media as done a good job of ignoring every question we have asked about

eric holder. but i think when she starts asking questions, they were going to get the bottom of what is happening over here. and i actually expect her to do her oversight job in the senate, just like we will do here in the house. >> why is mitt romney and paul ryan -- why did they lose and the republicans lost seats in the house and senate? what do think the republican party needs to do to make sure it doesn't happen again? >> can you identify yourself? >> jonathan with the new york times. >> i think that is a great question. many of us are looking and thinking about that. i do not think we lost by being too conservative and articulating our principles to clearly. it was the opposite. the 2010 election was a way the

election, a tremendous response from the same folks that propelled the symbol latest republican majority in decades. i do not think the turn of the diamonds and we do not want to cut spending, balance our budget, that is not what they said. eisler margin of 51%, the president was reelected -- by a very slim margin of 51%, the president was reelected. not just the folks that breed the wall street journal, no disrespect, but there are millions of other americans who have not heard what we believe and and the value of limited government. i do not think our candidates did a very good job of articulating that. >> if i could add that it was then the election of that, as then pointed out, has created the second-largest republican

house majority since world war two. according to the exit polls from the american people agree with the positions of the republican party, and hardly disagree with the positions of the democratic party. we saw a poll and noting that obamacare is now less popular than at any time since the polling began. what we do know is that for these next four years the american people are about to get a graduate lesson in obamanomics, and at the end of the course they will be a lot sadder and wsier. -- wiser. we need to pull up our socks and get back in the game. >> many commentators have commented on this. but peggy said the following. she said the exit polls indicate that republicans want the who what shares your values

question but lost on the who cares about people like you question. i think that is the key to this election. the majority of the american people, this is why we continue to have a republican house, agree with our conservative principles here in the house, believe that we are the better part due to actually bring this nation forward, they agreed that mitt romney had a better economic plan than barack obama. but we have done a terrible job of letting the american people know that we care about them, that we are not the party of big business, that we are the party of average individuals -- we are the party of small s.siness, entrepreneur hour i cannot become a republican because i wanted to help big

businesses. big businesses can take care of themselves. it is the average american people that have a hard time. is hispanics, african americans, women who have been losing houses. we have done a terrible job of selling that message. we need to get back to the basics of why we are republican and let the american people and of that we care about them, welcome them and our party and want them to help us build this nation more strongly. >> i would like to know -- with the congress should do regarding the outcome of what is going on in pr. but you think that [indiscernible] >> it is something that we are going to have to look at very

closely. was born and raised in pr. so it is something that is dear to my heart. the question is, i do not really understand the results and a puerto rico. i am trying to understand the result -- i think i will have to study that more closely to really understand what exactly happened. i do not see how -- he is a good friend of mine who i thought was a terrific governor, was able to lose when his -- when the status question actually 1. those are things we will have to study in the congress. >> deirdre walton, cnn, since

the elections john boehner has been talking about what to negotiate a deal on the fiscal cliff and says he is open to new revenue and willingness to compromise. i was wondering what you think of his position on this, and if you are right to support him this afternoon? >> i do not know if you are here earlier when i spoke about the 10-1 deal. i want to see where they are willing to cut. olive heard is that the democrats are saying they are not willing to cut anything in. the president had a meeting last night with the labor unions, all of these separate liberal groups. and everyone of those groups to the president that he should not deliver anything on a reforms of our entitlement system, but you should insure the delivers a tax increase. i do not think they are open- minded in any way. i think we need to stop negotiating with ourselves. and we need to wait for the democrats to actually give us an

offer that is a real serious offer. we need to stop speaking amongst ourselves. he won the presidency, let him lead. >> i believe that revenue is important part of the equation, but there's a healthy and unhealthy way to raise revenue. the on how the way to raise revenue is to increase taxes in a brittle economy that is already buckling under the burdens of government tax and regulation policy. the healthy way of generating revenues is to reform this tax structure to ensure that the ed.ying field is level th and the tax system is competitive with other countries. that is the only genuine way of

increasing revenue and the only healthy way. by raising tax rates in a brittle economy such as this, you can often actually produce less total revenue because of the damage that is done to the economy. the doubt that, look at california's experience. i can give you many examples where increases in tax rates have caused decreases in tax revenues. >> michigan had the same experience. they raised their rates. they thought they would get an increase of over $1 billion in revenue and get a degrees and $1 billion in revenue. states that have done not have actually had some problems. you asked a question about why we lost. when i started this group, the conversation was conservative. i had a chart that showed that under democratic rule and the

house and set the unemployment rate went up. when we had obama in the white house, and a democratic control of the house and senate the unemployment remained high. as soon as the house was taken over by the republicans, the unemployment rate went down. i think we made a mistake, of not admitting to the american people that the economy was improving a little bit. and saying it could be better if we actually have complete control of congress and complete control of the white house. if you look at every single state or just about every state where a republican governor is working, the economy is actually improving. the economy is doing better because the of conservative policies being enacted. we as republicans were able to stop the obama agenda for two years. what you saw was a drop in the unemployment rate of 2%. and i think we should have made a more robust argument for

saying that our policies are working and their policies did not work. >> let me make two a quick points. step back first. the way this always works. but washington creates the crisis and tries to take credit for solving it or avoiding it. this is a crisis but retreated with legislation that was passed here. secondly, this is right on target. mr. president commercial as a planet. let us see what you are for. show us what your plan is to deal with the sequester any tax increases that are coming. the -- if this is revenue that results from a growing economy, that is what we need. that is what we have got to focus on until this long-term revenue results from growth --

it is not conducive to growth and not plan to help families. >> continuing on the subject of a ravenous and with the stipulation in the suggested that we speak to democrats about the sunny side of it. president obama was elected, as you have a referenced, mentioning frequently that he wanted a balanced approach, he wanted the wealthy to pay their fair share, he won by an electoral margin of well an excess of 100. do you gentlemen not interpret that as a mandate for the president to discuss revenue increases? you think he won in spite of that rather than because of that? >> i appreciate the question. i do not consider 51% victory

much of a mandate. it is not. the exit polls show 66% of the american people that voted say we do not want to raise taxes to reduce our deficit. that is the mandate. this president had two years to raise taxes on everybody wanted to. dna majority of nancy pelosi and harry reid to do it. he did not do it. -- he had a majority. it is time for the president to get serious and provide some leadership. he wanted to be president for four more years. is presided over the worst economy since the great depression. massive exploding deficits. a debt ceiling coming very quickly. this is the time for you to step up to the plate, mr. president. it is time to step up. where have you been? welcome to four years of failed

economic policies. we will see if you will present anything different. >> every one of us on this panel will not be her if we did not have a clear mandate from our constituents to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that are crushing the life of the american economy. >> that is what i was like to say. to answer your question the way you asked it, he is a mandate to talk about it, and we have a mandate to fight it. . and i think that is what the american people elected us to do. we will continue to fight it and a fight any member of our conference that decides this is a good time to raise taxes. if we can talk about revenues, ways to get the economy growing, to get the gdp higher, we can do all of those things through tax reform, regulatory reform and other things that we

campaigned on that. >> the gop conference -- is been put to the conference that tom price would be the more conservative candidate that would better represent your values. is that you see it? are you supporting him against rogers? >> i am supporting tom price. >> i have not said publicly. i like them both. i will keep my vote secret. >> i am supporting, price. >> i will follow the lead. >> explain a little bit behind your thinking? why you are supporting him? what's he was the chairman before. -- >> he was a chairman before. i like kathy, i just think he would do the job better.

>> richard from reuters. when the charter but doing tax reform, or any of the open to closing loopholes, getting rid of tax breaks, and if so, what kind? >> absolutely. and that is the irony of this debate. i always use this example. it is fundamentally unfair the to of a company like ge, getting away with making millions in profit and not paying any taxes. the irony of this debate is that if we do tax reform, the wealthy will actually pay more, but not paying more because we are raising their rates, they are paying more because there are some of the sacred loopholes that they have hired lobbyists tants and lawyers to come to washington, d.c. to get. the airline to get rid of the

loopholes. hopefully then we can lower the rates on the american people. i think every conservative is ok with closing loopholes. we want to make sure we do not have any marginal rates going up in the overall tax burden remains the same. >> and one of the things i have been doing four months out and about an hour district come every provide the opportunity to speak to ask, how many of you think we need a new tax code? every single hand will go up, not just small business owners, teachers, everyone. everyone understands the tax code that permits on the personal side, almost half of the population not participating -- it needs a new tax code. if it is broken and stupid you might want to start over. people get to that concept. certainly we need reform.

the speaker has been a clear on this. we have put forth plans. certainly we need to get to that simplify the model what we need to do it in a way that does not increase the overall burden on job creators and families because we want our economy to grow. >> both sides are talking about a two step process, something to avoid the fiscal cliff, a down payment or a bridge. and a bigger agreement next year. would you except new revenue in that first part. immediate revenue. you are talking about revenue as part of tax reform that would not happen for one year. do you except upfront new revenue? >> without any cuts? >> as part of a deal that there would be -- >> i would agree to revenues in the second step, not the first period as far as i recall, not a

single one of the people here voted for the debt limit increase or voted for the sequester i warned the conference at the sequester would lead to higher taxes. we were being painted into a corner where the cuts were coming from the military and from payments to providers. those are two constituencies that tend to be more republican than democrat. a father was a mistake for us to do it then. i am not want to increase taxes on the american people as we can get out of a deal that i did not even vote for. >> i mean look, you cannot do the lucie browner thing and say raise taxes now i promise we will cut later, that will not fly. we are not for raising revenues -- remember where we are at. we passed the debt limit increase.

we get to do any of the promised cuts from the one of 15 months ago. where are those? the idea of do this now we are will do the cuts. the american people are saying, are due serious? that is problematic. >> let us understand the big picture here. i had been watching. i remember him looking us in the air. for every 102009 when he was selling his economic stimulus plan. he said the fdr's new deal did work but you should spend more money and the records would of shown it. it seems purely to me that he was looking me in the eye. when i looked at this a sequestration deal on the fiscal cliff and i think, what does he want? he doesn't want to reform medicare or medicaid purity as

obamacare in a position where it will be awfully hard to stop now. interest is another entitlement of those. that is five entitlements. they all collapse of the general fund that is -- fits his velocity perfectly purity is happy to cut the military. i look at this and i think, what does he want out of this? if the negotiations collapsed and the bush tax cuts went away, that looks to me like that might be his goal and his dead at of free jailed card is, i want to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. in the end of the president has a strong hand. if he holds the line and beat goes everything, he gets everything he wants. on the other side of this, it will take a strong coalition of conservatives to hold this together and take any fiscal responsibility. the fiscal cliff is not the most

dangerous thing, it is going off the fiscal waterfall to degrees. insolvency but i am concerned about. a lot of this will be sure raid on the part of the president to find a way to blame on republicans. >> clearly elections of consequences. but one thing that is different than two years ago is that the debt ceiling was indicated, we are about ready to crash through the debt ceiling with cuts that had assured the least two of the credit rating agencies. but another agency did not downgraded indicated if he did not make the cuts, the minimum cuts that we are talking a lot is actually the sequester. and to suggest we should not do any type of sequester to bridge that sends a clear signal not just to the american people, but to our creditors that this president's administration is not serious about his financial situation we are in it. i think it would lead to a downgrade of our outlook by

moody's and a downgrade and our credit. that to me is the difficulty of saying, lotus -- for a few months. when you are carrying 16.3 trillion dollars there's a cost to doing that. i feel that we send an unmistakable signal that we are not prepared as well. thank you for being here. i appreciate you joining us. >> kurt jackson with the record in new jersey. the governor of new york as a disaster from hurricane sandy will cost about $30 billion in his state, new jersey's estimate is still coming in. it could be that high. we need additional disaster aid, with the support it or would you insist that it be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget?

>> i would like to see whatever the final numbers are here and there are preliminary estimates. and when you indicate that we desired to be offset, many of us desired that -- that was not the case. that is outside the debt deal, the disaster relief. but this is the interesting situation we find ourselves in it. in order to help new york and new jersey, federal government does not have any money. we have to go to the federal reserve or borrow more money. we will look to see what those are. but that becomes part of the scenario. this explosive situation of the fiscal waterfall or whichever you might call that. we will see with the numbers are. >> i think one of the things about disaster relief in the northeast is, there are people

suffering there. and we have a track record of helping people out in those kinds of disasters. hurricane katrina, there were big mistakes made, a tremendous amount of money wasted, there was not a planned to spend it. they came with a request of $10.5 billion and i supported that. it lasted one week. they came back asking for 50 billion more dollars. 1.8 billion for the corps of engineers. i asked for the plan. and finally, i went right down through the path and i said i want to see your spreadsheet, the documents. if it is not that i want to see the dart board that you might have thrown in the dark at. i think they actually did for a dart figuratively speaking and it ended up on $50 billion for fema. i found out, at 5:30 2:00 a.m., i got the e-mail, he promised me

would give the plan on how they got to the number. in that was included -- 300,000 a trailer houses, 270,000 of which were backward, not built yet, $65 million in the planet's four, get this time mitigation of future disasters. there were opportunists in the katrina disaster. in a the result least $1.4 billion of that that were wasted. and that to divorce lawyers and cana.to planunta i am asking for complete plan, not only were these resources need to go but what kind of protections are there so they go in the right place. that gets me along with them a spot and i will be looking offsets.

i do not know that is a deal breaker. we do not have that. i will be looking for plans. >> could anyone address the world to believe that paul ryan should play in this fiscal negotiation? what would you like him to do? and how influential you think you will be? i am with the new york times. >> i hope his friend and center because he is probably our best spokesperson on how serious this situation is and how to remedy it and put us back on a path. we can sustain. i think all of us were impressed with how he handled himself on the campaign trail. i hope he is rate in the middle of it. and my guess is that he is going to be. that is where my colleagues are as well. >> i guess i would add to that,

when you step back and look of the election results and look as among the conclusions but some have drawn a, we are going to need clear voices of leadership to lay out an agenda for the future. i think paul is an important part of that. i was excited to see them come back into conference. it was a warm welcome with a double standing ovation. we arlington made clear voices. have you get to balance in the face of the spender we have in the white house? order regard to do a better roster budget amendment? he has been a good supporter of that. we need to lay out an agenda on how we are going to get the fiscal solvency and paul ryan will be an important part of that. >> during a conference this morning, he will report of the republican negotiating team as we move forward. in how we will be voting to

maturity remained as my budget committee chairman. we have things to face now, bigger things to face in the near future. >> could you talk about the farm bill. what your priorities are and what you are working on right now? >> i just look at the work of the committee and say i would like to bring it to the floor during land dock. we have negotiated a lot of this. i did not want to look at the prospect and come back in a new congress enough to start over from scratch. and i think that the disagreements out there are democrats to not want to cut snap programs and they want to continue to expand it. most of the agriculture producers have given up direct payments.

that is a big step against what has traditionally been there for the farm bill. i think our -- perhaps in an opportunity to billing + bring a bill to the floor. i want to get that done before we a start over. >> i agree with many of those comments principle that remains is that the farm bill is about food stamps. 80 percent of the farm bill. and we of the agricultural community talking about the 20%. and projected growth. 47.1 million americans on food stamps. massive increases under this administration. and they say we can only say the 4 billion in the senate bill. 4 billion?

i was in the room with our present a bill strum different states -- with representatives from a different states. we have got to have those types of reforms, i plan on offering an amendment on the floor to start that process. if we are going to do with bill -- it would involveea -- this is what we need, we can do a better job. that should be part of the discussion. the idea, we can spend $80 billion a year and we do not want to reform that. the senate has made that clear. hopefully that will be a battle when we get to conference over what is in the bill, $800 billion for food stamps out of a

trillion dollar farm bill. >> we have the state that have over the past several years been through referendums seeking to regulate the means of protection of our agricultural products. a state like california might say that estimate to california shall be raised in certain a caged sizes. it started out to be free range. nancy pelosi started out regulating free range. that california agenda violates the commerce clause of the constitution where interstate commerce is related exclusively by congress not the states. our founding fathers understood that period regulating the means of production and needs to be stopped. there's a lesson that already exists in that the code. that takes care of states like

california, arizona, florida from telling as how we are going to produce eggs and raise cattle. that is an important piece that has been a fight in this campaign. hasn't had a lot of play in the press. that is another reason i want to give it to conference by the end of the year. >> i do hope that if the farm bill comes to the floor i hope it is an open rule where there will be amendments. i would see them splitting the nutrition a component from the agriculture component. let us start to have this debate. separating the food stamp permission from the agriculture policy. >> as one new campaign very strongly in support of the house

a bill, without apology, i can tell you the farmers of h dakota like the house bill final. not only did they find any objection to bore cuts, -- more cuts, but they like in the house version, while giving up direct payments, and they are happy to, what they did not like in the senate version was this conservation compliance for participating in the program. they do not need to be told how to farm. and egg production, in the north dakota is a tweewheat. the sustainability of their land is more important to them than anybody else. they find these roles offensive. i would love to see you all vote

on it and pass the house version or vote on the house version before i become a congressman it to be a great relief to me. it is a classic example of this. the works of conservatives -- is appropriate in solving the problem. >> is a hacking into e-mail accounts something that concerns you? >> i read a report this morning that they had a subpoena, do you know about that? and i remember asking myself, what court's did they go to? i do not remember the source, i did remember in my blurry night trip through the internet i remember picking that up. i do not know the answer.

>> i do not know the answer. there are more senior members here. i have been struck at the lack of loneliness of this administration. very unwilling. certainly this is another case of that. was struck as well that to me to tell me that the head of the cia uses gmail to communicate? it struck me. i am concerned about that. there will be hearings into this. apparently has agreed to testify, as he should. i look forward to the committee taking a lead on it. >> some of your colleagues on

the senate side are talking about making a deal working with democrats on a compromise. how far are you willing to go to strike an immigration deal with the democrats? >> that is a good question. i would have been surprised if i did not. . i have seen a pattern over the years, people coming into the congress and taking a look of the immigration issue and thinking they have the negotiation skills to resolve one of the most complicated issues i have seen in this congress. i do not think there is a simple solution. each time there's a solution that, is brought that i see a whole series of pitfalls. if there's. be a proposal to reach an agreement, that has to do with a promise that there will be enforcement of immigration law,

happening propose such a thing with the president and the white house, when we has clearly violated the constitution of the white house. and by executives issued work permits, a fabrication of the president of the united states, not an act of congress, every other document that allows them to be in the united states -- it is generated by the congress. so i think that the promise of enforcement, it has far less allure than it has ever had given the president the finds of the constitution's. that makes it very difficult for any agreement to come out on immigration. that is one of the pieces where we are. you will know that on the republican side, there has been some leading voices the made the comments that they believe that because of the loss of hispanic

vote, the marginal loss, we cannot build the coalition again, unless we do something to make accommodations. i think people that come here from those countries often come from corrupt country is, where they do not have the rule of law. i think they appreciate people being equal year the united states. i do not want to react to the numbers. what about the largest gender gap we have ever had in history? what happened to the ron paul coalition and the libertarian the coalition? there are a number of reasons why we did not add up to 50% plus one of those. i am hoping to have a discussion about it. i do not know whether will offer enforcement and exchanged for accommodation if you have a president that defies his own nose to the constitution and his own definition of his

limitations with regard to immigration. >> i was an immigration lawyer for 15 years. as a conservative voice to my understand what steve is saying, but agreed to realize that we are never went to be a majority party if we do not begrudge the way to reach the hispanic community. -- if we do not find a way to reach the hispanic community. we need to find a conservative consensus on immigration. we need to sit and agree on a bill. and people at this table that will actually do something with are broken immigration system. one of the biggest thing is conservatives talk about often is that we want to fix a broken government. if you know anything a lot immigration laws, the immigration system is absolutely broken. we do the grass where people can come to a united states through legal system. we have to do something about

border protection. i am a big fan of doing something with e-verify. we cannot keep punching a the ball for the next congress to fix. i am trying to get the conservatives to work on this issue. to find a solution to the immigration problem. if we do not find a solution, we add all these other problems that we lost, but one of the main reasons that we lost as because mitt romney had 27% of the hispanic vote. if we continue to get 27% of the hispanic vote, it will continue to lose every single presidential election out there. there's a way to do it. hispanics agree on social issues, fiscal issues, they are usually business-oriented. they believe all of the things we believe in. they do not want higher taxes.

but we cannot even reach them if they feel they are not welcome in our party. that assumption that i went to work on it, for the next two years. i hope i can work with people like steve and people from the far right to the far left on this issue because we have got to find a solution to this problem. >> one thing i like to add is that i hired people like raul. we have been through the process that is a mess and doesn't make much sense. there are things we can do. but this president has had four years. where is the proposal? there hasn't been one. we need leadership. it starts there. in my district, and the president is supposed to represent the whole country, and with 51%, i noticed it what to do that.

whether they just want to be able to work here, and their spokesmen are working the system as well illegally. that needs to be looked at closely. but this cries out for the united states president to quit politicking and get on with the job. of the four years now. now is the chance and the time it. will it take many months, maybe years to work through that. i appreciate leadership of folks like this. >> to the frustration and people like steve. you have a president you knew we were working on the immigration reform and congress. people like marco rubio. he decided by executive order to do something that he had no authority to do. he decided to do something like that, and instead of advancing the ball on immigration, but he

did was poisoned the well so we would not be willing to work on immigration reform. if you think about it, the only reason we did not have immigration reform is because two gentleman, romney manual and barack obama in the senate decided to vote for an amendment that actually helped the union. there were backed by the unionists. they decided they would poison the well. no one talks about that in the media. was a liberal labor union and it was barack obama in the senate decided to poison the well. he did it again this time. as republicans way to be smarter than we have been on this issue in the past. we have to look past the idiocy of the other side and find a rational solution to immigration. immigration.